3 ms·

By that "logic" birth control does too.

xyzzy4747 5y ago
- philistine 5y ago
  Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof. Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
  - xyzzy4747 5y ago
    Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
    - Bancakes 5y ago
      How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.
- autoexec 5y ago
  Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.
  - xyzzy4747 5y ago
    - autoexec 5y ago
      Obviously "a jungle with no people" is ridiculous hyperbole. They've tried a few minor things without reforming the cultural issues that have contributed to the decline in births. What difference does it make if the people they bring in aren't ethnicity Japanese? Are you concerned that the Japanese will die out like an endangered species? On a long enough timeline, all ethnicities are doomed, but there's no genuine concern that that will happen to the japanese any time soon.
    - Bancakes 5y ago
      Yes and it's the natural extension of modern lifestyle. The invariant is that for as long as there's kids, they are taken care of, and it still holds true for "jungles". How many humans do you even need?
- mdoms 5y ago
  This is truly one of the most bizarre comments I have ever read on this website.
yucky 5y ago
Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization. Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor. If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it not?
    - klyrs 5y ago
      No. We don't need to draw the line. Doctors and their patients do.
      - yucky 5y ago
        But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger? You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority. I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.

philistine 5y ago
Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof. Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
- xyzzy4747 5y ago
  Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.
autoexec 5y ago
Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.
- xyzzy4747 5y ago
  - autoexec 5y ago
    Obviously "a jungle with no people" is ridiculous hyperbole. They've tried a few minor things without reforming the cultural issues that have contributed to the decline in births. What difference does it make if the people they bring in aren't ethnicity Japanese? Are you concerned that the Japanese will die out like an endangered species? On a long enough timeline, all ethnicities are doomed, but there's no genuine concern that that will happen to the japanese any time soon.
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    Yes and it's the natural extension of modern lifestyle. The invariant is that for as long as there's kids, they are taken care of, and it still holds true for "jungles". How many humans do you even need?
mdoms 5y ago
This is truly one of the most bizarre comments I have ever read on this website.

Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.

klyrs 5y ago
Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization. Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
- yucky 5y ago
  >and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor. If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it not?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    No. We don't need to draw the line. Doctors and their patients do.
    - yucky 5y ago
      But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger? You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority. I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.